Wiki Suggestions

Have suggestions on how to better our wiki? Voice them here. Just make sure they are useful and concrete.

I'm also looking for volunteers to help with our wiki in some of the places I"m less knowledgable.

It needs a section which explains how stars rotate around two celestial poles whilst maintaining a constant angular distance from each other. That page is missing.

The distortion of the southern continents.

Perhaps you people could write a short article explaining the topic that want want added instead of just telling us what you want us to explain to you?  That would actually be useful.  Thanks. 

Perhaps you people could write a short article explaining the topic that want want added instead of just telling us what you want us to explain to you?  That would actually be useful.  Thanks.

Why should RErs help build an FE wiki?

Quote from: jroa on March 30, 2016, 04:44:29 PM

Perhaps you people could write a short article explaining the topic that want want added instead of just telling us what you want us to explain to you?  That would actually be useful.  Thanks.

Why should RErs help build an FE wiki?

Then don't complain about it if you are unwilling to help. 

The distortion of the southern continents.

An original, accurate an official flat earth map.

Quote from: jroa on March 30, 2016, 04:44:29 PM

Perhaps you people could write a short article explaining the topic that want want added instead of just telling us what you want us to explain to you?  That would actually be useful.  Thanks.

Why should RErs help build an FE wiki?

This is The Flat Earth Society website. The wiki should be their responsibility.

Perhaps you people could write a short article explaining the topic that want want added instead of just telling us what you want us to explain to you?  That would actually be useful.  Thanks.

I can't remember what the explanation for stellar rotation is, though. Can someone remind me? Then I'd be delighted to write the wiki page for you.

We don't need to fight about whose doing the work. Just suggestions please.

I'd like to see a good explanation of the celestial gears model. It's hard to find the explanation in much more detail than a gif of gears, demonstrating how they can rotate in opposite directions, and a general description of where the teeth and where the centre of the main one is.
That explains the principle but it doesn't help with, for example, what stars are where: how much of the night sky is in one gear, and any relationship to the tracks the Sun takes.

It'd also be good to have a page on aether/dark energy with clear divides, to sort out the various models used. There's the fabric-of-space model (under multiple formulations), some that model it more as an actual fluid, the 'interaction of charged and non-charged particles' or something like that...

It might be worth trying to come up with a diagram, just to sort out related areas and competing models. Like, link together celestial gears and celestial gravitation.
Planning for a while is pretty much required. With the multitude of FE models, and the overlap, it might be worth trying to figure out what comes under what section. Then title accordingly, and you'd have a wiki that's instantly much more readable. Like, the page on UA could link to denpressure and the density-downwards law as alternate explanations for the same effect.
Honestly, a framework of empty pages is probably more useful than an uncoordinated mess of filled-up ones, because information's only useful if it's accessible in the right context.

Also, have you considered making a section of the forum for drafting wiki pages? it saves the need of giving editor-powers out, and anyone will be able to help (even REers) by writing up a page on some aspect of a model that they feel they understand. Then someone can vet it, and post it.

I'd like to see a good explanation of the celestial gears model. It's hard to find the explanation in much more detail than a gif of gears, demonstrating how they can rotate in opposite directions, and a general description of where the teeth and where the centre of the main one is.
That explains the principle but it doesn't help with, for example, what stars are where: how much of the night sky is in one gear, and any relationship to the tracks the Sun takes.

It'd also be good to have a page on aether/dark energy with clear divides, to sort out the various models used. There's the fabric-of-space model (under multiple formulations), some that model it more as an actual fluid, the 'interaction of charged and non-charged particles' or something like that...

It might be worth trying to come up with a diagram, just to sort out related areas and competing models. Like, link together celestial gears and celestial gravitation.
Planning for a while is pretty much required. With the multitude of FE models, and the overlap, it might be worth trying to figure out what comes under what section. Then title accordingly, and you'd have a wiki that's instantly much more readable. Like, the page on UA could link to denpressure and the density-downwards law as alternate explanations for the same effect.
Honestly, a framework of empty pages is probably more useful than an uncoordinated mess of filled-up ones, because information's only useful if it's accessible in the right context.

Also, have you considered making a section of the forum for drafting wiki pages? it saves the need of giving editor-powers out, and anyone will be able to help (even REers) by writing up a page on some aspect of a model that they feel they understand. Then someone can vet it, and post it.

The map problem would be a good starting point.....Among others, the horizon being one.

Another problem is the "celestial gears": What is the mechanism for "shifting the gears for the changes in seasons".

Page explaining sun and moon would be very helpful. They seems to be asked about quite a bit around here, too

The map problem would be a good starting point.....Among others, the horizon being one.

They'd probably need a whole page on atmospheric refraction given how much it's appealed to, so the horizon could be covered there.

The map question is honestly a bit silly. That sort of thing requires a fairly huge investment, both of money and time. It's a great idea, and something they should aim for, but it's not something anyone's going to be able to come up with on the spur of the moment. The first map of the world is generally considered to be Anaximander's, in about 600BC: humans had been around for quite a while before that.
Generally I work under the rule of not to ask for any more than you'd be willing to do. You're not asking FEers to quote an existing map as their ideal, you know one doesn't exist, so you're asking them to map out the whole world. There's no way you could do the same thing easily, especially not by yourself, so what exactly is the point in expecting others to do it?
While there's the possibility of setting up a project (using, say, the location of the Sun relative to various locations) to roughly map places out, it's going to be quite a while before that could be done, especially if the kinds of REers who like to butt in with very little content and cliche stupid arguments overtake the thread, as they have in multiple others.

Page explaining sun and moon would be very helpful. They seems to be asked about quite a bit around here, too

I'd guess being more specific would be useful: what needs explaining? It's far easier to answer defined questions than hope you've covered everything.
Orbits, phases, shape/structure, why they emit light in the way they do, eclipses, maybe even what makes them up. Things like that.

Page explaining sun and moon would be very helpful. They seems to be asked about quite a bit around here, too

Especially the sizes and distances from the earth of the sun, the moon, the planets, the stars and other celestial objects.

I think Jane should be made a Flat Earth Editor.  She knows as much, if not more, than any other roundy.  She often explains FE theory better than most of us can. 

I think Jane should be made a Flat Earth Editor.  She knows as much, if not more, than any other roundy.  She often explains FE theory better than most of us can.

Given how long my last ascension lasted, it's probably not worth it 

Quote from: jroa on April 01, 2016, 10:35:37 AM

I think Jane should be made a Flat Earth Editor.  She knows as much, if not more, than any other roundy.  She often explains FE theory better than most of us can.

Given how long my last ascension lasted, it's probably not worth it 

The Editors can edit the wiki, have a cool title, and maybe other things, but I think not.  I am not saying you have to write complete articles.  I am just saying that I think you would be a perfect fit to do an edit here or there, seeing as you understand most of the flat Earth theories, as much as you can, anyway, but also seem to understand what new people are actually wanting to know, and you seem to have a better than American grasp on the English language. 

I would look at at least two things you have linked as experimental evidence.

Tom Bishop conclusively demonstrates that the earth is flat here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18114.msg319626#msg319626

The distance stated is wrong. It is not 33 miles but 23.  It is also very questionable that the telescope was 20" above the water.  There is a steep drop off to the water of about 4-5 feet in the area he states he was at.

I think it is dishonest leaving it as experimental evidence and conclusive proof when the error about the distance is known.

Professor Mark Fonstad of Southwest Texas University mathematically demonstrates the earth's flatness here:
http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html

One common method of quantifying ‘flatness’ in geodesy is the ‘flattening’ ratio. The length of an ellipse’s (or arc’s) semi-major axis a is compared with its measured semi-minor axis b using the formula for flattening, f = (a – b) / a. A perfectly flat surface will have a flattening f of one, whereas an ellipsoid with equal axis lengths will have no flattening, and f will equal zero.
For example, the earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation, making its semi-major axis slightly longer than its semi-minor axis, giving a global f of 0.00335. For both Kansas and the pancake, we approximated the local ellipsoid with a second-order polynomial line fit to the cross-sections. These polynomial equations allowed us to estimate the local ellipsoid’s semi-major and semi-minor axes and thus we can calculate the flattening measure f.

His methodology is clearly explained and he was not saying Kansas is flat like the way I think you want people to believe.  IMHO it seems either the person who posted the link either did not understand the methodology or it is an attempt to mislead people.

Quote from: Jane on April 01, 2016, 10:38:19 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 01, 2016, 10:35:37 AM

I think Jane should be made a Flat Earth Editor.  She knows as much, if not more, than any other roundy.  She often explains FE theory better than most of us can.

Given how long my last ascension lasted, it's probably not worth it 

The Editors can edit the wiki, have a cool title, and maybe other things, but I think not.  I am not saying you have to write complete articles.  I am just saying that I think you would be a perfect fit to do an edit here or there, seeing as you understand most of the flat Earth theories, as much as you can, anyway, but also seem to understand what new people are actually wanting to know, and you seem to have a better than American grasp on the English language.

This is actually a suggestion which has merit. Now for goodness sake, change your account password before the real Jroa comes back. Whoever you are, thanks for taking over his profile.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on March 30, 2016, 03:57:37 PM

The distortion of the southern continents.

An original, accurate an official flat earth map.

I second that one

Are you guys buff buddies?  Just wondering. 

Are you guys buff buddies?  Just wondering.

I'll answer when you answer my IM

The South Celestial Pole, and The North Magnetic Pole.

Quote from: jroa on April 03, 2016, 12:00:59 PM

Are you guys buff buddies?  Just wondering.

I'll answer when you answer my IM

I don't have IM.  However, I will make an account if that is the only means you have to converse with me. 

Quote from: jroa on April 01, 2016, 10:45:45 AM

Quote from: Jane on April 01, 2016, 10:38:19 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 01, 2016, 10:35:37 AM

I think Jane should be made a Flat Earth Editor.  She knows as much, if not more, than any other roundy.  She often explains FE theory better than most of us can.

Given how long my last ascension lasted, it's probably not worth it 

The Editors can edit the wiki, have a cool title, and maybe other things, but I think not.  I am not saying you have to write complete articles.  I am just saying that I think you would be a perfect fit to do an edit here or there, seeing as you understand most of the flat Earth theories, as much as you can, anyway, but also seem to understand what new people are actually wanting to know, and you seem to have a better than American grasp on the English language.

This is actually a suggestion which has merit. Now for goodness sake, change your account password before the real Jroa comes back. Whoever you are, thanks for taking over his profile.

I think that is just sober jroa - we don't see much of that version...